4 ms·

This is the correct thing to do. They really must avoid another WinXP scenario where people were running 10 year old builds on internet connected PCs. If you co

This is the correct thing to do. They really must avoid another WinXP scenario where people were running 10 year old builds on internet connected PCs. If you connect to the internet, your device must be fully patched.

some_account 9y ago
Is it your computer or Microsofts? Because I really think the language in Windows speaks to you as just the guest, while Microsoft is taking care of your needs like a parent. I guess I'm very hostile to that idea since I grew up in a time when my computer was my computer, not the property of an American software organization to decide for me what is best.
- Sacho 9y ago
  I am sympathetic to your stance - I don't like Microsoft overriding my decisions. My worry is that this stance will eventually lead to harsh penalties for operating unpatched software and getting hacked, and I feel that's not something most users would want. How do we reconcile these two competing problems? It doesn't seem fair to me to have all the power of ownership with none of the responsibility.
  - noselasd 9y ago
    Are they really competing problems ? Most users don't care, they get their updates when Microsoft decides to. The users that do care, and want or need to opt out of the updates know what they are doing and can take responsibility for their actions to block updates.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    > eventually lead to harsh penalties for operating unpatched software and getting hacked People have been saying this for years and there's never been any sign of it getting anywhere near a legislature. If someone's going to be made responsible it's going to be those that produced the product.
- sheepdestroyer 9y ago
  It may not be Microsoft's right to decide when or how to patch your computer but from a public health point of view, sane policies already dictate mandatory vaccination. Perhaps you would be happier with the government enforcing mandatory patching to be able to connect to the internet?
  - k_sze 9y ago
    If software updates/upgrades can be cleanly separated into security fix vs new features/removal of old features, then I think it may be reasonable for governments to enforce mandatory patching. Unfortunately, software doesn't work like that. It's hard (if not completely impossible) to separate security from feature updates. You'll likely need to cherry pick git commits and build the software yourself. I don't know of any sane person who would spend the time to do that.
  - simion314 9y ago
    The main issue is that MS is forcing full updates not only security updates, you won't like it if your computer can't boot or for some reason MS changed the GUI,broke something you depended on.
- benrbray 9y ago
  No one is forcing you to keep using Windows. Plenty of people are happy enough with Linux.
  - f2n 9y ago
    But Microsoft is saying that they wont push updates without user's consent.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - s2g 9y ago
    And that’s fine, but you should keep that up to date too.
    - chopin 9y ago
      But I can do at my own choosing. And that's what I do.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  It is akin to not getting your kid vaccinated based on rights to freedom. Your freedom ends where mine begins. And if your botnet infused Windows PC is going to fuck up my network, I'd say either get off the internet or get your Windows patched.
  - CamperBob2 9y ago
    Except this "vaccine" really does cause autism, or the digital equivalent thereof. Oh, and the doctor administers it by sneaking into your kid's bedroom with a needle in the middle of the night, coming in through a window if you locked the front door. Other than that, yeah, perfect analogy.
  - blub 9y ago
    It's akin to not getting your kid vaccinated because when they give them the vaccine they also change the kid's clothes, haircut and hair color, paint their nails pink and give them a pair of MS smart glasses which record everything you do in your home for vaccination program improvement purposes.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    Until your kid becomes outdated, and they stop making vaccines for her, sure. (I'd have no problems keeping up to date if Microsoft's support periods were as long as the medical industry's are for my child). At this point, Windows is going to end up just being my mostly-disconnected gaming OS when they stop releasing security updates in a little under 2 years. Windows 10 needs to dump the animated ad tiles and allow complete removal of their remote-processed speech API. If they're going to continue with forced reboots, there needs to be some tech where apps run in suspendable containers, or something. I'm tired of picking up the computer in the morning and trying to remember everything I had open to work on whatever I was doing before the reboot.
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      > when they stop releasing security updates in a little under 2 years. Not going to happen unless MS itself shuts down or they decide to exit the desktop OS market.
etaioinshrdlu 9y ago
The very idea of banning unapproved OS's on a public network seems very at odds with the spirit of the open source community.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  I think you are conflating "internet" with "open source community". There is no relation. We are talking about the public internet and what we need to do to maintain it.
  - etaioinshrdlu 9y ago
    There may be no formal relation between internet and open source, but open source ethos seems pretty key to the HN community as a whole. It is part of why we come to this site in the first place.
simion314 9y ago
There are legitimate cases where you need to avoid an update, if you remember a month ago when the meltdown/specter patches were pushed out some PCs did not boot, if you have your scenario where everyone is forced to update then people with affected hardware can't rollback because the update will be forced again on them, the PC would be unusable until a new update fixes the bug. Similar bugs with non booting PCs, display drivers not working, other hardware not working, performance loses happened many times after updates, so you need to allow the rollback functionality to work. A solution that would help in this case is implemented in some major linux distributions where you can chose to install only the security updates, this means more work for Microsoft but if Red Hat and others can spend the time to backport security fixes to the Linux kernel then MS should be able to do the same. I am aware of the downsides of this, but enterprise customers should ask for the security fixes only and not for all the eye candy changes and if enterprise get this special security fixes then the other users should have the option to get them too, paid customers should not be forced to run on bleeding edge.

some_account 9y ago

Is it your computer or Microsofts? Because I really think the language in Windows speaks to you as just the guest, while Microsoft is taking care of your needs like a parent. I guess I'm very hostile to that idea since I grew up in a time when my computer was my computer, not the property of an American software organization to decide for me what is best.

Sacho 9y ago
I am sympathetic to your stance - I don't like Microsoft overriding my decisions. My worry is that this stance will eventually lead to harsh penalties for operating unpatched software and getting hacked, and I feel that's not something most users would want. How do we reconcile these two competing problems? It doesn't seem fair to me to have all the power of ownership with none of the responsibility.
- noselasd 9y ago
  Are they really competing problems ? Most users don't care, they get their updates when Microsoft decides to. The users that do care, and want or need to opt out of the updates know what they are doing and can take responsibility for their actions to block updates.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > eventually lead to harsh penalties for operating unpatched software and getting hacked People have been saying this for years and there's never been any sign of it getting anywhere near a legislature. If someone's going to be made responsible it's going to be those that produced the product.
sheepdestroyer 9y ago
It may not be Microsoft's right to decide when or how to patch your computer but from a public health point of view, sane policies already dictate mandatory vaccination. Perhaps you would be happier with the government enforcing mandatory patching to be able to connect to the internet?
- k_sze 9y ago
  If software updates/upgrades can be cleanly separated into security fix vs new features/removal of old features, then I think it may be reasonable for governments to enforce mandatory patching. Unfortunately, software doesn't work like that. It's hard (if not completely impossible) to separate security from feature updates. You'll likely need to cherry pick git commits and build the software yourself. I don't know of any sane person who would spend the time to do that.
- simion314 9y ago
  The main issue is that MS is forcing full updates not only security updates, you won't like it if your computer can't boot or for some reason MS changed the GUI,broke something you depended on.
benrbray 9y ago
No one is forcing you to keep using Windows. Plenty of people are happy enough with Linux.
- f2n 9y ago
  But Microsoft is saying that they wont push updates without user's consent.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- s2g 9y ago
  And that’s fine, but you should keep that up to date too.
  - chopin 9y ago
    But I can do at my own choosing. And that's what I do.
dingo_bat 9y ago
It is akin to not getting your kid vaccinated based on rights to freedom. Your freedom ends where mine begins. And if your botnet infused Windows PC is going to fuck up my network, I'd say either get off the internet or get your Windows patched.
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  Except this "vaccine" really does cause autism, or the digital equivalent thereof. Oh, and the doctor administers it by sneaking into your kid's bedroom with a needle in the middle of the night, coming in through a window if you locked the front door. Other than that, yeah, perfect analogy.
- blub 9y ago
  It's akin to not getting your kid vaccinated because when they give them the vaccine they also change the kid's clothes, haircut and hair color, paint their nails pink and give them a pair of MS smart glasses which record everything you do in your home for vaccination program improvement purposes.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  Until your kid becomes outdated, and they stop making vaccines for her, sure. (I'd have no problems keeping up to date if Microsoft's support periods were as long as the medical industry's are for my child). At this point, Windows is going to end up just being my mostly-disconnected gaming OS when they stop releasing security updates in a little under 2 years. Windows 10 needs to dump the animated ad tiles and allow complete removal of their remote-processed speech API. If they're going to continue with forced reboots, there needs to be some tech where apps run in suspendable containers, or something. I'm tired of picking up the computer in the morning and trying to remember everything I had open to work on whatever I was doing before the reboot.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    > when they stop releasing security updates in a little under 2 years. Not going to happen unless MS itself shuts down or they decide to exit the desktop OS market.

etaioinshrdlu 9y ago

The very idea of banning unapproved OS's on a public network seems very at odds with the spirit of the open source community.

dingo_bat 9y ago
I think you are conflating "internet" with "open source community". There is no relation. We are talking about the public internet and what we need to do to maintain it.
- etaioinshrdlu 9y ago
  There may be no formal relation between internet and open source, but open source ethos seems pretty key to the HN community as a whole. It is part of why we come to this site in the first place.

simion314 9y ago

There are legitimate cases where you need to avoid an update, if you remember a month ago when the meltdown/specter patches were pushed out some PCs did not boot, if you have your scenario where everyone is forced to update then people with affected hardware can't rollback because the update will be forced again on them, the PC would be unusable until a new update fixes the bug. Similar bugs with non booting PCs, display drivers not working, other hardware not working, performance loses happened many times after updates, so you need to allow the rollback functionality to work. A solution that would help in this case is implemented in some major linux distributions where you can chose to install only the security updates, this means more work for Microsoft but if Red Hat and others can spend the time to backport security fixes to the Linux kernel then MS should be able to do the same. I am aware of the downsides of this, but enterprise customers should ask for the security fixes only and not for all the eye candy changes and if enterprise get this special security fixes then the other users should have the option to get them too, paid customers should not be forced to run on bleeding edge.